Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Collective phenomena in chirally imbalanced medium

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A chiral chemical potential splits transverse gluons into left- and right-handed modes and increases the Debye mass, so quarkonium suppression is stronger in a chirally imbalanced quark-gluon plasma.

desk verdict Solid HTL calculation that confirms known chiral-plasma results and adds potential and sum rules; the main caveat is the unproven μ5 dispersion-shift ansatz and the cited—not derived—instability rate. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23646 v1 pith:6FOMT6NM submitted 2025-06-30 hep-ph nucl-th

Sourav Duari , Nilanjan Chaudhuri , Sourav Sarkar , Pradip Roy This is my paper
classification hep-phnucl-th PACS 11.10.Wx12.38.Mh25.75.-q
keywords chiralchemicalpotentialgluonpolarizationtensorhardthermallooptransversemodesplittingplasmainstabilityheavy-quarkDebyescreeningquarkoniumsuppression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Chirally imbalanced quark matter—matter with more right-handed than left-handed quarks, characterized by a chiral chemical potential $\mu_5$—behaves as a parity-violating plasma, and this paper works out the observable collective consequences. Using hard-thermal-loop (HTL) methods in the real-time formulation of thermal field theory, the authors compute the gluon polarization tensor and show that a parity-odd term proportional to $\mu_5$ appears alongside the usual longitudinal and transverse parts. This term splits the two degenerate transverse gluon modes into left- and right-handed circularly polarized branches, introduces purely imaginary low-momentum poles (plasma instabilities) with a well-defined growth-rate maximum, and increases the Debye screening mass while increasing the imaginary part of the static heavy-quark potential. The payoff is phenomenological: in a quark-gluon plasma with local parity violation, quarkonium states should be more strongly suppressed than in an ordinary plasma, giving a possible signature of chiral imbalance in heavy-ion collisions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-loop quark contribution to the gluon polarization tensor, evaluated in the real-time formulation of thermal field theory with hard-thermal-loop (HTL) approximations. The chiral chemical potential enters through the quark propagator $S_{11}(K)$ whose dispersion relations are written as $\omega_r^k=|\mathbf{k}|+r\mu_5$ for $r=\pm$; the HTL reduction of this propagator produces the parity-odd tensor structure $\Pi_A$ in $\Pi^{\mu\nu}=\Pi_T R_T^{\mu\nu}+\Pi_L Q_L^{\mu\nu}+\Pi_A P_A^{\mu\nu}$. $\Pi_A$ is what breaks the degeneracy: in the effective propagator, the two circular projectors $A^{\mu\nu}=\frac12(R_T^{\mu\nu}+P_A^{\mu\nu})$ and $B^{\mu\nu}=\frac12(R_T^{\mu\nu}-P_A^{\mu\nu})$ carry $\Pi_T+\Pi_A$ and $\Pi_T-\Pi_A$ respectively, so a nonzero $\Pi_A\propto\mu_5$ splits the transverse modes and generates the unstable imaginary poles.

What would settle it

The central claim would be settled by a direct evaluation of the one-loop gluon self-energy in which $\mu_5$ is implemented as a chemical potential multiplying the quark-number operator in the distribution functions rather than as an on-shell energy shift: if no parity-odd $\Pi_A\propto\mu_5$ survives, or if a first-principles lattice computation finds no $\mu_5$ dependence in the Debye mass, the chiral splitting and enhanced quarkonium suppression would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that in the quark-gluon plasma a nonzero chiral chemical potential $\mu_5$ enters the gluon self-energy through a parity-odd structure function $\Pi_A$ that is proportional to $\mu_5$, alongside the usual longitudinal and transverse pieces. Because $\Pi_A$ enters the effective propagator with opposite signs in the two circular-polarization projectors, the formerly degenerate transverse gluon modes split into left- and right-handed circularly polarized branches $\omega_T^\pm$. The same $\mu_5$ also enhances screening: the Debye mass becomes $M_D^2 = g^2 T^2 (N_f+2C_A)/6 + N_f g^2 (\mu^2+\mu_5^2)/(2\pi^2)$, shrinking the Debye radius, while the imaginary part of the static heavy-quark potential grows, so quarkonium dissociation is enhanced. The paper further finds purely imaginary low-momentum poles, i.e. chiral plasma instabilities, whose maximum growth rate is $\gamma_{\max} \simeq 1.314\times10^{-3}\,\mu_5^3/M_D^2$ and whose development time exceeds the inverse plasma frequency by four to five orders of magnitude.

Load-bearing premise

Every $\mu_5$-dependent result rests on treating the chiral chemical potential as a mere shift of the quark energy, $\omega_r=|\mathbf{k}|+r\mu_5$, inside the hard-thermal-loop propagator; if the correct hot-matter resummation modifies the quark propagator in a more complicated way, all of the paper's $\mu_5$-dependent predictions change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The two transverse gluon dispersion branches $\omega_T^+$ and $\omega_T^-$ separate: the gap grows with $\mu_5$ and shrinks as temperature increases, and both branches stay above the light cone, so no Landau damping occurs for these stable modes.
  • The plasma has a low-momentum unstable mode with purely imaginary frequency; its maximum growth rate is about $1.314\times10^{-3}\,\mu_5^3/M_D^2$, and the instability needs four to five orders of magnitude longer than the inverse plasma frequency to develop.
  • The Debye mass becomes $M_D^2 = g^2 T^2 (N_f+2C_A)/6 + N_f g^2 (\mu^2+\mu_5^2)/(2\pi^2)$, so a higher chiral chemical potential shortens the Debye radius and simultaneously enlarges the imaginary part of the heavy-quark potential.
  • Quarkonium dissociation is therefore enhanced in a chirally imbalanced medium: screening weakens the real binding while Landau damping broadens the bound state's decay width.
  • The gluon spectral-density sum rules are modified: the third transverse moment picks up a term $\pm (g^2/(12\pi^2))(N_f/2)\mu_5 q$, and the transverse residues split into $Z_T^\pm$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the splitting is real, the gluon spectral density becomes circular-polarization dependent, so polarization-resolved electromagnetic probes of the quark-gluon plasma could in principle carry a chirality-induced asymmetry that is absent in ordinary HTL plasmas.
  • The paper's own numbers imply that the chiral instability grows on a timescale four to five orders of magnitude longer than the plasma period; I infer that such instabilities are unlikely to drive early thermalization unless the chiral imbalance is far larger than the 50–150 MeV values considered.
  • Because the Debye mass enters $\mu_5$ only quadratically and is shared with the ordinary quark chemical potential $\mu$, the screening shift is numerically small at the chiral chemical potentials commonly discussed; I infer that a detectable quarkonium-suppression signal would require selecting events with unusually large local chirality imbalance, for example through event-shape or charge-separat
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the one-loop gluon polarization tensor in a chirally imbalanced hot QCD plasma using the hard thermal loop (HTL) approximation in the real-time formalism. It derives the structure functions Π_L, Π_T, and Π_A, obtains the effective gluon propagator, and studies the dispersion relations, including a splitting of the transverse modes into left- and right-handed circularly polarized modes. It further analyzes an unstable mode and its time scale, computes the real and imaginary parts of the static heavy-quark potential, and evaluates spectral sum rules and residues. The main results are the μ5-dependent Debye mass M_D^2 = g^2 T^2(N_f + 2 C_A)/6 + N_f g^2(μ^2+μ5^2)/(2π^2), the anomalous structure function Π_A ∝ μ5, the transverse mode splitting, and an enhanced quarkonium suppression due to a reduced Debye radius and an increased decay width.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a diagrammatic, real-time-formalism derivation of collective phenomena in a chirally imbalanced plasma that were previously obtained in kinetic theory, and it makes phenomenological predictions for quarkonium suppression in such a medium. The strengths are the transparent derivation of Π_L and Π_T, the explicit verification that μ5 = 0 reproduces the standard HTL results, and the use of a general tensor decomposition that preserves gauge invariance. However, the central phenomenological claim is compromised by an apparent error in the real part of the heavy-quark potential and by the fact that the instability rate is quoted from the literature rather than derived from the paper's own Π_A. The paper is clearly written and the references are appropriate, but the issues below prevent acceptance in the current form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section VI, Eqs. (48) and (50)] The real part of the heavy-quark potential is not the full in-medium potential. The expression Re V = α_s[(1 - e^{-r/r_D})/r - 1/r_D] vanishes in the vacuum limit M_D → 0 and contains no Coulombic -α_s/r term, whereas the standard full potential is Re V = -α_s(e^{-M_D r}/r + M_D) (up to the color factor). The paper appears to have evaluated only the medium-subtracted part or used the wrong sign in Eq. (48). This is load-bearing for the claim that quarkonium suppression is enhanced, since the short-distance behavior of the potential is essential for binding.
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (46) and (47)] The instability rate γ is quoted from Ref. [30] rather than derived from the authors' own Π_A in Eq. (39) and dispersion relation (41). Since the paper claims to compute imaginary poles of the propagator, it should explicitly show that the quasistatic solution of Q^2 + Π_T + Π_A = 0 reproduces Eq. (46). Without this, the reader cannot verify the consistency of the diagrammatic calculation with the kinetic-theory result.
  3. [Section IV and Introduction] The introduction states that the components of the polarization tensor match the kinetic-theory results of Ref. [30], but no explicit comparison is shown anywhere in the paper. The intermediate algebra from Eq. (9) to Eqs. (23), (32), and (39) is compressed into 'after some algebra,' making it difficult to verify the claimed match. The authors should display the key reduction steps or provide a supplemental derivation, at least for Π_A.
  4. [Section VII, Eq. (61)] The transverse sum rule is dimensionally inconsistent. From Eq. (57), Δ_T^±(0,q) = 1/(q^2 ± (g^2/(2π^2))(N_f/2) μ5 q), not 1/q^2 ± (g^2/(2π^2))(N_f/2) μ5 as written. The μ5-dependent term in Eq. (61) has units of GeV rather than GeV^{-2}, which propagates into the sum-rule discussion. This needs to be corrected.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V, text near Fig. 6] The sentence 'a longer time is required for the instability to develop for higher values of μ5' contradicts both the summary and Eq. (47), which imply a shorter time for larger μ5. It likely should read 'for higher temperatures' or 'shorter.'
  2. [Eqs. (43), (45), (69)] The symbols e2, e4, and e6 are undefined; presumably they denote g^2, g^4, and g^6, respectively. These should be typeset unambiguously.
  3. [Eqs. (60), (62), (66)] The denominator 'q0 - q0' in the sum-rule integrands should be 'q0' - q0' (a dummy integration variable); as written it is a typographical error.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The propagator in Eq. (2) contains a factor 1/(4|k| r μ5), where r is summed over ±. It would be clearer to write the standard factor 1/(4|k| μ5) with the difference of the two poles, or to explain why r appears in the denominator.
  5. [Section VI] The heavy-quark potential formulas in Eqs. (50) and (53) omit the color factor C_F; the authors should state whether C_F is absorbed in α_s or whether the results are for a prototypical color-singlet configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mu5-dependent gluon self-energy, transverse splitting, instability rate, and heavy-quark potential are derived from an explicitly stated chiral fermion propagator, with the mu5=0 limit checked and the instability expression cited to independent external work.

full rationale

All mu5-dependent quantities, including the anomalous structure function Pi_A, the transverse-mode splitting, the Debye mass M_D^2, and the complex heavy-quark potential, are derived from an explicitly stated parameter-free input: the chiral fermion propagator in Eq. (2), with omega_k^r = |k| + r mu5. No parameter is fitted to the paper's own outputs. Pi_A follows from an algebraic hard-thermal-loop reduction culminating in Eq. (39), whose mu5-linear coefficient is obtained from an exact phase-space integral over the Fermi-Dirac distributions; Pi_L and Pi_T acquire mu5^2 through the same statistical integrals. The instability rate in Eq. (46) is explicitly cited to Akamatsu and Yamamoto (Ref. [30]), an independent external source, rather than being repackaged from the authors' own Pi_A. The paper also verifies that setting mu5 = 0 reproduces the standard HTL results. The only self-citation that provides a load-bearing starting formula, Ref. [44] for the propagator in Eq. (2), supplies a parameter-free chiral thermal propagator whose assumptions do not include the paper's target results; the formula is stated explicitly and is not an output of this calculation. The dispersion-shift treatment of mu5 is an assumed physical input, but that is a correctness and robustness concern, not a circular reduction under the stated rules.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. The central dependence on mu5 is inherited from the chiral medium description, and the free parameters are the usual QGP parameters. The heaviest modeling assumption is how mu5 enters the quark propagator.

free parameters (4)
  • chiral chemical potential mu5 = 50, 100, 150 MeV in figures
    The chiral chemical potential is the input that characterizes the chiral imbalance. The paper takes illustrative values relevant to QGP, but does not determine mu5 from experiment or from a first-principles calculation.
  • quark chemical potential mu = 150 MeV in figures
    A representative value for the quark chemical potential is chosen for the numerical plots.
  • temperature T = 200 and 400 MeV in figures
    Two representative QGP temperatures are chosen for the numerical illustrations.
  • strong coupling alpha_s = alpha_s = 0.4 in Figs. 7 and 9
    The heavy-quark potential plots use a fixed coupling value, which is a standard choice but is a hand-set parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Hard thermal loop approximation with soft external momentum q ~ g T and hard loop momentum k ~ T
    Used in Sec. IV to reduce the self-energy integrals to the HTL forms. This is standard for the regime described, but it restricts the results to soft gluon momenta.
  • standard math Analytic continuation from the time-ordered 11-component to the retarded self-energy via Re Pi = Re Pi_11 and Im Pi = coth(beta k0/2) Im Pi_11 for fermions
    Invoiced in the text before Eq. (9) and in Appendix A, Eqs. (A8) and (A9). This is a standard RTF relation, but the coth factor is quoted without derivation and is central to the imaginary part of the potential.
  • domain assumption The chiral chemical potential enters the quark propagator as an additive shift in the dispersion relation omega_r = k + r mu5
    Appears in Eq. (2) and the dispersion relations used throughout the paper. This is the key modeling assumption that determines all mu5 dependence in the structure functions and dispersion relations.
  • domain assumption The gluon self-energy in a chirally imbalanced medium has the Nieves-Pal form Pi = Pi_T R_T + Pi_L Q_L + Pi_A P_A
    Stated in Sec. III, Eq. (10), following Ref. [45]. This tensor basis is assumed complete, which is standard for a parity-violating vector medium.
  • domain assumption Quarkonium dissociation is governed by the static heavy-quark potential obtained as the Fourier transform of the gluon propagator in the quasistatic limit
    Used in Sec. VI, Eq. (48). The quasistatic limit and the identification of the imaginary part with decay width are standard in the literature, but they are assumptions about how quarkonium decoherence is described.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Collective phenomena in chirally imbalanced medium." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6FOMT6NM

@misc{pith2026250623646,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Collective phenomena in chirally imbalanced medium},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6FOMT6NM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23646}
}
read the original abstract

We calculate the gluon polarization tensor for a chirally imbalanced plasma using hard thermal loop approximation in the real time formulation of thermal field theory. The dispersion relations obtained from the poles of the effective gluon propagator are solved numerically as well as analytically in appropriate limiting cases. It is seen that the degenerate transverse modes split into left and right handed circularly polarized modes. We also compute imaginary poles of the propagator which signal the presence of instability in the plasma. Relevant time scales for development of such instabilities are discussed in detail. Furthermore, we compute both the real and imaginary parts of the static heavy-quark potential in the chirally imbalanced plasma and argue that quarkonium suppression is enhanced due to the combined effects of a reduced debye screening length and an increased decay width. In addition, we calculate the gluon spectral density, sum rules and residues for various cases, providing a comprehensive understanding of the collective behaviour of the medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23646 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Feynman diagrams for one-loop gluon self-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effective gluon propagator where (𝐺 −1 0 )𝜇𝜈 is inverse of the free gluon propagator given by (𝐺 −1 0 )𝜇𝜈 = 𝑄 2 𝑔𝜇𝜈 −  1 − 1 𝜉  𝑄𝜇𝑄𝜈 . (15) We now decompose (𝐺)𝜇𝜈 as 𝐺𝜇𝜈 = 𝐺1𝑄𝜇𝑄𝜈 + 𝐺2𝐴𝜇𝜈 + 𝐺3 (𝑄𝐿)𝜇𝜈 + 𝐺4𝐵𝜇𝜈 (16) where 𝐴𝜇𝜈, (𝑄𝐿)𝜇𝜈 and 𝐵𝜇𝜈 are the projection tensors defined as 𝐴𝜇𝜈 = 1 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gluonic modes in hot chirally asymmetric medium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Difference Δ𝜔 2 𝑇 as function of the momentum 𝑞 in units of 𝑀𝐷 the amount of splitting is larger (smaller) at smaller (larger) temperature value. Now we obtain the approximate analytic solutions of Eqs. (40) and (41) in the limit of small and large momenta. For small v…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Imaginary parts of the dispersion relation for the unstable mode. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 𝜏min/𝜏𝑝 as a function of temperature for different values of 𝜇5 . To further investigate the timescale associated with the development of plasma instabilities in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The real part of the heavy-quark potential as a function of r, evaluated at three different chemical potentials ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The variation of Debye radius as a function of chiral chemical potential. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The imaginary part of the heavy-quark potential as a function of r, computed at three values of the chiral chemical potential ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Integration contour for derivation of sum rules [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The contour 𝐶 in the complex time plane for RTF with 𝑇 → ∞ where −𝑖𝐷 (0) 𝑙𝑙′ is the corresponding vacuum propagator and the matrix 𝑼(𝑘0) is built up from the distribution functions. Such factorized form of propagator remains the same for different spins however the di…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Plasminos in chiral QCD plasma

    hep-ph 2025-09 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper claims left and right handed quark quasiparticles and plasminos split with masses M ± δM in a chiral plasma, but the splitting is not supported by its own pole equations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [30]

    D. F. Litim and C. Manuel, Phys. Rept. 364, 451 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0110104

    arXiv 2002

  2. [1]

    1.1 -0.12 -0.115 μ5 =50 MeV μ5 =100 MeV μ5 =150 MeV 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0r (fm) -0.04 -0.08 -0.12 Re V (GeV) T = 200 MeV (a)

    work page

  3. [2]

    The real part of the heavy-quark potential as a function of r, evaluated at three different chemical potentials ( 𝜇5 = 50, 100, and 150 MeV) for𝑇 = 200 MeV (left plot, Fig

    1.1 -0.29 -0.285 -0.28 μ5 =50 MeV μ5 =100 MeV μ5 =150 MeV 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0r (fm) -0.05 -0.15 -0.25 Re V (GeV) T = 400 MeV (b) Figure 7. The real part of the heavy-quark potential as a function of r, evaluated at three different chemical potentials ( 𝜇5 = 50, 100, and 150 MeV) for𝑇 = 200 MeV (left plot, Fig. a) and𝑇 = 400 MeV (right plot, Fig. b). For this ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    M. A. Shifman, Sov. Phys. Usp. 32, 289 (1989)

    work page 1989

  5. [4]

    A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, A. S. Schwartz, and Y. S. Tyupkin, Phys. Lett. B 59, 85 (1975)

    work page 1975

  6. [5]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 8 (1976)

    1976

  7. [6]

    ’t Hooft, Phys

    G. ’t Hooft, Phys. Rev. D 14, 3432 (1976), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 18, 2199 (1978)]

    work page 1976

  8. [7]

    N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D 28, 2019 (1983)

    1983

Show all 53 references
  1. [8]

    F. R. Klinkhamer and N. S. Manton, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2212 (1984)

    1984

  2. [9]

    V. A. Kuzmin, V. A. Rubakov, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B155, 36 (1985)

    1985

  3. [10]

    P. B. Arnold and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D 36, 581 (1987)

    1987

  4. [11]

    S. Y. Khlebnikov and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Nucl. Phys. B308, 885 (1988)

    1988

  5. [12]

    P. B. Arnold and L. D. McLerran, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1020 (1988)

    1988

  6. [13]

    S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. 177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  7. [14]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw, Nuovo Cim. A 60, 47 (1969)

    1969

  8. [15]

    L. D. McLerran, E. Mottola, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2027 (1991)

    1991

  9. [16]

    G. D. Moore and M. Tassler, JHEP 02, 105 (2011), arXiv:1011.1167 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Abdallah et al

    M. Abdallah et al. (STAR), (2021), arXiv:2109.00131 [nucl-ex]

    2021

  11. [18]

    An et al., Nucl

    X. An et al., Nucl. Phys. A 1017, 122343 (2022), arXiv:2108.13867 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Milton, G

    R. Milton, G. Wang, M. Sergeeva, S. Shi, J. Liao, and H. Z. Huang, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064906 (2021), arXiv:2110.01435 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Mrowczynski, Phys

    S. Mrowczynski, Phys. Lett. B 314, 118 (1993)

    1993

  14. [21]

    P. B. Arnold, J. Lenaghan, and G. D. Moore, JHEP 08, 002 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0307325

    2003 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Kurkela and G

    A. Kurkela and G. D. Moore, JHEP 12, 044 (2011), arXiv:1107.5050 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Kurkela and G

    A. Kurkela and G. D. Moore, JHEP 11, 120 (2011), arXiv:1108.4684 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  17. [24]

    A. Ipp, A. Rebhan, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 84, 056003 (2011), arXiv:1012.0298 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Attems, A

    M. Attems, A. Rebhan, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 87, 025010 (2013), arXiv:1207.5795 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Mrowczynski and M

    S. Mrowczynski and M. H. Thoma, Phys. Rev. D 62, 036011 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0001164

    2000 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Mrowczynski, A

    S. Mrowczynski, A. Rebhan, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 70, 025004 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0403256

    2004 arXiv

  21. [28]

    J. P. Blaizot and E. Iancu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 3376 (1993), arXiv:hep-ph/9301236

    1993 arXiv

  22. [29]

    P. F. Kelly, Q. Liu, C. Lucchesi, and C. Manuel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3461 (1994), arXiv:hep-ph/9403403

    1994 arXiv

  23. [31]

    D. T. Son and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D87, 085016 (2013), arXiv:1210.8158 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Akamatsu and N

    Y. Akamatsu and N. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 052002 (2013), arXiv:1302.2125 [nucl-th]

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Carignano and C

    S. Carignano and C. Manuel, Phys. Rev. D 99, 096022 (2019), arXiv:1811.06394 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. E. Carrington, B. M. Forster, and S. Makar, Phys. Rev. C 104, 064908 (2021), arXiv:2107.08229 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Rothkopf, T

    A. Rothkopf, T. Hatsuda, and S. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 162001 (2012), arXiv:1108.1579 [hep-lat]

    2012 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Burnier, O

    Y. Burnier, O. Kaczmarek, and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 082001 (2015), arXiv:1410.2546 [hep-lat]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Strickland and D

    M. Strickland and D. Bazow, Nucl. Phys. A 879, 25 (2012), arXiv:1112.2761 [nucl-th]

    2012 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Burnier and A

    Y. Burnier and A. Rothkopf, Phys. Lett. B 753, 232 (2016), arXiv:1506.08684 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Y. Guo, L. Dong, J. Pan, and M. R. Moldes, Phys. Rev. D 100, 036011 (2019), arXiv:1806.04376 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Laine, O

    M. Laine, O. Philipsen, P. Romatschke, and M. Tassler, JHEP 03, 054 (2007), arXiv:hep-ph/0611300

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Brambilla, J

    N. Brambilla, J. Ghiglieri, A. Vairo, and P. Petreczky, Phys. Rev. D 78, 014017 (2008), arXiv:0804.0993 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rothkopf, Phys

    A. Rothkopf, Phys. Rept. 858, 1 (2020), arXiv:1912.02253 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    M. L. Bellac, Thermal Field Theory, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  36. [44]

    Mallik and S

    S. Mallik and S. Sarkar, Hadrons at Finite Temperature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    H. A. Weldon, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1394 (1982)

    1982

  38. [46]

    Ghosh, N

    S. Ghosh, N. Chaudhuri, S. Sarkar, and P. Roy, Phys. Rev. D 105, 096005 (2022), arXiv:2201.06473 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J. F. Nieves and P. B. Pal, Phys. Rev. D39, 652 (1989), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 40, 2148 (1989)]

    1989

  40. [48]

    V. V. Klimov, Sov. Phys. JETP55, 199 (1982)

    1982

  41. [49]

    Dumitru, Y

    A. Dumitru, Y. Guo, and M. Strickland, Phys. Rev. D 79, 114003 (2009), arXiv:0903.4703 [hep-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  42. [50]

    L. Dong, Y. Guo, A. Islam, A. Rothkopf, and M. Strickland, JHEP 09, 200 (2022), arXiv:2205.10349 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka, Quantum theory of many-particle systems (Dover Publication, Mineola, 2003)

    2003

  44. [52]

    R. L. Kobes and G. W. Semenoff, Nucl. Phys. B 260, 714 (1985)

    1985

  45. [53]

    Laine and A

    M. Laine and A. Vuorinen, Basics of Thermal Field Theory , Vol. 925 (Springer, 2016) arXiv:1701.01554 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.